Gravitational Engineering - A Basic Transceiver

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Enrico</i>
<br />[tvf]: On the other hand, theories like your MM, have a strong ontological content and at the same time impossible to falsify also. It seems then, that in order to have accurate predictions, corresponding theories evade falsifiability and this is puzzling to me. That is why only corroboration is possible.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

MM is easy to falsify. If any of its specific, quantitative predictions is proved wrong, then the model is falsified. The fudging is not with the model itself. The problem is that real-world experiments and observations are messy, imperfect affairs. Observations generally have some level of error associated with them. And unsuspected systematic errors can creep in from many sources. Take the pericenter motion prediction for two large, co-orbiting stars, for example. Other factors such as tidal influences can change pericenter motion too. And we might not initially know whether these are present at a significant level.

So it is a natural reaction to a model's first failure to blame the observations and to hypothesize an alternate cause. That is not ideal but is considered fair as long as the model did not need to change. (Changing the model means the observation or experiment that suggested the need for change did not test anything, but led to the creation of a whole new untested theory.)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: The graviton medium is all held together by forces operating on scales that we cannot perceive and have no hope of perceiving. And even if we could someday discover these forces and their unit particle or wave, they too would have boundary conditions that we could not perceive, and so on ad infinitum.

[Enrico]: This statement accounts for a declaration that the Meta Model is not falsifiable.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I would say just the opposite is true. The Meta Model, like any physical theory, can never be proved true because there will always be more unexplored portions of an infinite universe. However, MM's specific, quantitative predictions can prove it false at any step, and it will always remain vulnerable to falsification (as a good physical theory should).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: an infinity of such forces and mediums must exist, by extension of Zeno's paradoxes, for which the only possible resolution consistent with logic is infinite divisibility.

[Enrico]: This accounts for circular reasoning. Arguments against Plurality, like Zeno's paradoxes, cannot be used to support Plurality, because it is the Plurality those arguments attack precisely.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

If one does not resolve a paradox, it becomes a contradiction. Therefore, resolving Zeno's paradoxes in MM is not circular reasoning, but a logical necessity.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[Enrico]: if the limit is part of the quantity considered, then infinity, in infinite models, must be part of the model. This goes against your assertion that in the MM no infinite entities exist and creates another paradox, called the paradox of infinity.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The Meta Model is infinite in five, and only five, dimensions (space, time, scale). Dimensions are concepts, not physical entities. No physical, material entity can ever be infinite, even when an infinite number of such entities (a concept) exist. This is analogous to all integers being finite, yet the set of all integers (another concept) being infinite.

Note that it does not matter whether the set is a member of itself or not. Sometimes, as here, unsolved problems in metaphysics have no useful counterparts in practical physics.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[Enrico]: But even in the case of finite quantities we are still faced with the problem of whether the limit is part of the interval or not.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Not in practical physics, we're not faced with such a problem. It just doesn't matter. This is another Gordian knot slain by pragmatism.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[Enrico]: As one may suspect, things are not that trivial and many models include substantial circular context.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It would be nice to think that those of us who did study logic and passed the course can still reason validly. All these issues and related ones (e.g., Is reality external and objective? How can one have First Principles without making assumptions?) are addressed in "Dark Matter...". You can call it the Meta Model's "pragmatic metaphysical school" of thought, or "PMS" for short. [] -|Tom|-

TVF: You can call it the Meta Model's "pragmatic metaphysical school" of thought, or "PMS" for short.

So to conclude (as a figure of speach) this round on interesting discussion, if the MM is a practical model with five infinite dimensions, how can a practical person double the volume of a cube in the MM universe?

To be specific, I have a cubic meter (a cube with one meter side lentgh) and I want to double its volume. How do I do that in a practical way given the assumption of infinite divisibility and five infinite dimensions?

Since infinite divisibility and five infinite dimensions are present, it followes that such double cube should be practically possible to realize. However, when I solve the equation I find that the new side length should be 2^(1/3). Any idea how to practically get this length so the new volume is exactly double the initial volume?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Enrico</i>
<br />Since infinite divisibility and five infinite dimensions are present, it followes that such double cube should be practically possible to realize. However, when I solve the equation I find that the new side length should be 2^(1/3). Any idea how to practically get this length so the new volume is exactly double the initial volume?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It is unclear exactly what you are asking here because you already give the obvious answer. But let me make a couple of guesses.

The word "volume" has a specific meaning in physics, and that meaning involves only the three dimensions of space. Time and scale are not a part of the definition. So if your question was asking how to generalize from three dimensions to five, the answer is that, in MM, volumes apply only to space, but not to time or scale. So the answer to your specific question is to make each side of length 2^(1/3) times the original size.

If your question was about infinite divisibility and how to achieve excatly 2^(1/3) to infinite precision, that is a problem never faced by pragmatic physicists because all their measurements have finite precision, and are accompanied by a finite error of measurement. So there is no means to either achieve or verify anything physical to infinite precision. But if 10 decimal places would satisfy your needs, I can certainly devise an engineering solution to achieve that. If you need 20 decimal places, I will have to do a lot more work.

If neither of these answers is on target, then I did not get what you were really asking about. -|Tom|-

TVF: If neither of these answers is on target, then I did not get what you were really asking about. -|Tom|-

The problem is whether infinite divisibility exists only in a logical sense, or in a physical sense, or both.(This concpet has been debated extensively by Burnet, Guthrie and Furley to name a few for the case of Atomism) Since you cannot double volume in a physical sense precicely, one could claim that infinite divisibility only applies in a logical sense. In other words, in the substance level you cannot do it but at the phenomenal level you can logically deduce it by mathematics. Pierre Wantzel (1837) showed that doubling a cube by ruler and compass is impossible.

The postulation of a cause of gravity at the substance level combined with infinite divisibility presents a problem since you must demonstrate infinite precision and not just a finite, in doubling the volume of a cube, because the MM is a substantive cosmology. Then, I must draw the line and say the Meta Model deals with the phenomenal level only and the graviton is really a virtual particle assisting in the modeling of phenomena. This is my opinion.

By introducing material causes in a theory one is faced with tremendous difficulties, like the doubling of a volume of a cube for example, because the theory merges physics and metaphysics and it does not deal merely at the phenomenal level. But I must quit here and wish you good luck. It is certainly a brave step you have taken in science but it seems that the current status quo is a barrier for the acceptance of such leap in faith.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Enrico</i>
<br />The problem is whether infinite divisibility exists only in a logical sense, or in a physical sense, or both.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

In MM, infinite divisibility is just as mandatory (logically deducible from first principles) as is infinite space and eternal time. All five dimensions must be infinite.

I'm not sure what existing "only in a logical sense" means, but I am sure MM has infinite divisibility of scale in a physical sense. The new "wrinkle" is that the universe looks essentially the same at any scale. This means the universe consists of particles and waves in an unlimited variety of forms surrounded by mostly empty-appearing space. And it looks that way at any scale, however big or small.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Since you cannot double volume in a physical sense precisely, one could claim that infinite divisibility only applies in a logical sense.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I still don't know what "in a logical sense" means, but the rest of the statement cannot be correct. Our inability to measure with infinite precision is a natural consequence of infinite divisibility because, at some scale, every "ruler" is composed of discrete entities and ceases to function as a continuous scale for measuring. So the inability to achieve infinite precision of measurement despite infinite divisibility of scale is analogous to being unable to achieve building an infinite castle despite having infinite building materials, and analogous to the impossibility of making anything last forever despite time being eternal.

The math analogy is that every integer is finite and one cannot add enough integers together to get an infinite sum despite the number of integers being infinite. So infinities exist as concepts, but are not achievable in practice. And as these examples show, there is no intrinsic contradiction here.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The postulation of a cause of gravity at the substance level combined with infinite divisibility presents a problem since you must demonstrate infinite precision and not just a finite, in doubling the volume of a cube, because the MM is a substantive cosmology. Then, I must draw the line and say the Meta Model deals with the phenomenal level only and the graviton is really a virtual particle assisting in the modeling of phenomena. This is my opinion.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Now we are in a domain where I have completely lost the logical thread. If "gravitons" are thought of as comets that occasionally collide with planets, the net forces are closely analogous. Yet you seem to conclude that comets must be virtual bodies because I can't build an exactly double-volume cube.

Would it help if I pointed out that my ability to build a double-volume cube is <i>no different</i> than my ability to build a cube with eight time the original volume? In other words, irrationality of the dimensions is not a factor in my limitations. Only measurement precision limits me.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">By introducing material causes in a theory one is faced with tremendous difficulties, like the doubling of a volume of a cube for example, because the theory merges physics and metaphysics and it does not deal merely at the phenomenal level.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Pragmatism seems to eliminate these "tremendous difficulties". It is very much like the common man's answer to Zeno's argument that you cannot cross a street because you must traverse an infinite number of half-the-remaining-distance steps. The common man requires no philosophy to support his ability to do it. He just does it.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But I must quit here and wish you good luck. It is certainly a brave step you have taken in science but it seems that the current status quo is a barrier for the acceptance of such leap in faith.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I agree it is time for a pause and reflection. Thank fou for raising a number of interesting issues. I don't think I took any "brave steps". I just eliminated all assumptions, then let logical deduction take over. In the words of Arthur Conan Doyle's "Sherlock Holmes" character: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." -|Tom|-

Grieves me to see this board's becoming a metaphysical one.